Opinion
16031 Index No. 652669/12 Case No. 2021-02608
05-26-2022
BGC PARTNERS, INC., et al., Plaintiffs–Appellants, v. AVISON YOUNG (CANADA), INC., et al., Defendants–Respondents.
Nirav S. Shah, New York, for appellants. Steptoe & Johnson LLP, New York (Nathaniel Kritzer of counsel), for respondents.
Nirav S. Shah, New York, for appellants.
Steptoe & Johnson LLP, New York (Nathaniel Kritzer of counsel), for respondents.
Manzanet–Daniels, J.P., Kapnick, Shulman, Rodriguez, Pitt, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Melissa A. Crane, J.), entered July 1, 2021, which denied plaintiffs’ motion to renew their motion for leave to file a second amended complaint asserting claims for trade secret misappropriation and aiding and abetting breaches of the duty of fidelity, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
The court properly denied plaintiffs’ motion to renew their motion for leave to file a second amended complaint based on evidence discovered after the denial of the motion for leave to amend (see CPLR 2221[e] ). In a prior appeal from the order that decided plaintiffs’ original motion for leave to amend, we directed the court to enter judgment dismissing this action with prejudice on the ground that, by the time plaintiffs made that motion, we had already dismissed the claims remaining in the amended complaint, i.e., theft of trade secrets and aiding and abetting breach of the duty of fidelity, leaving no complaint to amend ( BGC Partners, Inc. v. Avison Young [Can.] Inc., 192 A.D.3d 498, 140 N.Y.S.3d 404 [1st Dept. 2021], lv dismissed 37 N.Y.3d 1226, 164 N.Y.S.3d 68, 184 N.E.3d 889 [2022] ). Further, during the pendency of the motion to renew and the appeal from the denial of the motion to amend, we issued the above-cited order directing the court to enter judgment dismissing the action with prejudice and denied a motion for reargument or leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals, despite the fact that we had been presented with the newly discovered evidence that was the basis for the motion to renew.